You can use the terms "and" & "or" in your search; "or" phrases are resolved
first, then the "and" phrases. For example, searching for "black hole and
galaxy or universe" will find articles that have the phrase "black hole" in them
and also have either "galaxy" or "universe" in them. Please note that other
search syntax like quote marks, hyphens, etc. are not currently supported.

When you view web pages with matches to your search, the terms you searched for will be highlighted in yellow.

If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Thomas Ray: "It's easy to get wound around the axle with black hole thermodynamics,..."
in“Spookiness”...

RECENT ARTICLESclick titles to read articles

Why Time Might Not Be an Illusion
Einstein’s relativity pushes physicists towards a picture of the universe as a block, in which the past, present, and future all exist on the same footing; but maybe that shift in thinking has gone too far.

The Complexity Conundrum
Resolving the black hole firewall paradox—by calculating what a real astronaut would compute at the black hole's edge.

Quantum Dream Time
Defining a ‘quantum clock’ and a 'quantum ruler' could help those attempting to unify physics—and solve the mystery of vanishing time.

Our Place in the Multiverse
Calculating the odds that intelligent observers arise in parallel universes—and working out what they might see.

Abstract: Only an entity that provides substance to all real entities can be the most fundamental. All others are derived from it. In material world, existence of matter is absolute truth. Therefore, matter qualifies as the most fundamental and it provides substance to all real entities.

Hi Nainan, I like your premise and conclusion. I agree that existence itself is a fundamental for everything else, and I would add foundational, where the consideration of the universe ought to start. One could build a very elegant structure of multiple dimensions but without existence to occupy them it, the imagined universe, is nothing. You have put forward a very detailed lengthy argument in favour of your premise. (Sorry I couldn't make myself read all of it, but I might return to it another time.) I agree the existence is not just material things but what is around those things. Host to fields (and actualizations of the fundamental forces, I'd say), that are casual. I would add other kinds of disturbance of the host existence too, that mediate other kinds of interactions; and electromagnetism, which i think you didn't discuss, though I might have missed that. Thank you for standing up for existence : ) Kind regards Georgina

If any entity (which we currently consider as material or non-material) exists, it should have objective reality, irrespective of our ability to sense or observe them. Objective reality provided by substance. Matter is the only thing that can provide substance. Real entities have positive existence, form and structure, irrespective of our ability to appreciate some of them. All entities and actions, you mentioned (fields, actuators of fundamental forces, electromagnetism, natural disturbances, media of inter-actions, etc.), are all real entities or actions of real entities, made of matter. Our ability to observe them differentiates between material and non-material objects. Imaginary (functional) entities are invented by rational beings and they exist only in our minds and in mathematical analyses. They have no substance, real existence, form or structure but they fulfil all functions assigned to them. If interested in details, kindly refer to www.matterdoc.info .

You wrote: “In order to have fundamental laws of physics to hold true under all conditions, they should all be based on a single fundamental entity. All logical theories in physics should be based on a single assumption.”

My research has concluded that Nature must have produced the only real physical structure obtainable. The earth had a real visible surface millions of years before any English language fluent man, woman, child, or parrot ever appeared on the earth’s surface. It would be illogical for Nature to devise different physical conditions in different places at different times. The real Universe consists of only one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated by mostly finite non-surface light.

Thanks for the comment. You are very correct to conclude that “Nature must have produced the only real physical structure obtainable”. Such structures would have most fundamental constituents, which are real and definitely should have substance that makes them real. However, we, the three-dimensional rational beings, are not perfect and our abilities are limited to observe only 3D entities. Entities, which we do not sense or experience but have substance, are also real. Our inability to experience them would not make them unreal. Therefore, the universe consist of all real entities with substance (whether they are visible or not). Hence, the entity that provides substance to all real entities should be considered most fundamental of all other structures.

I do believe you have focused on the most fundamental of the fundamental. You say "only an entity that provides substance to all real entities can be the most fundamental." Yes!

You then qualify this by saying "it is essential that all entities are developed from one type of fundamental constituent that has no definite property except its ability to exist." I would suggest that one more property is essential; the ability to interact with itself. As there is nothing else existing, interaction must be self-induced and self-sustained. This allows for dynamic evolution, and also yields a generalized change equation.

You distinguish between functional entities and real entities. The first are models or ideas and are treated by Korzybski, who says:

"The map is not the territory."

You agree with Einstein that space is an imaginary container – "there is no space absent of field." and you note "action-at-a-distance" is incorrect. Your idea of lower dimensional states of matter as medium of interaction is very interesting and innovative. I don't think it's necessary, nevertheless, I will try to imagine how one might mathematically describe such media.

You don't mention time, but I assume you do not think that every moving object has its own time dimension, stretching from minus eternity to plus eternity. My essay reviews the historical development of Einstein's "relativity of simultaneity". I hope you will read it and comment on it.

Your essay is short, but well reasoned and well stated. It deserves more attention. With the exception of the lower dimensional matter-particles, our ideas are much alike. In fact when you say that these particles behave as a perfect fluid, we agree on that too.

The most fundamental entity with more than a single property is bound to cause circular reasoning in the long run and make the concept liable to falsification. Anyway, a single property of ‘ability to exist’ (envisaged in my concept), endows minute matter-particles with ability for dynamic actions within themselves and ability to interact between each other. Simple mechanism, required for this, is inherent in the ability to exist.

A medium is essential to avoid ‘action at a distance through empty space’. This medium has to be fully effective and at the same time it has to avoid senses of rational beings and observation by their instruments. As our sense organs and instruments are devised to detect only entities in 3D spatial system, the medium has to exist in a different spatial system and act on 3D entities. Thanks for your offer for mathematical enquiry.

Time denotes interval between cause and effect or between different states of a body. Time, measured by clocks, is always related some or other kind of motion of physical entities. In fact, we are measuring interval between two states of a body and standardizing the measurement of interval in the name ‘time’ with respect to a reference interval. In fact, we are not measuring time, but comparing two intervals, one of them being the standard. Regrettably, I don’t consider ‘time’ even as an independent entity. You may have many mathematical arguments against this simple view (by bringing in history of events) but you cannot discard it altogether. I shall shortly read your essay and any other literature by you, available on the web, to understand more of your view.

Lower-dimensional matter-particles do not behave like perfect fluid but the medium formed by them does. In case, you are interested, you may find more of my concept at www.matterdoc.info

Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.

All objects, be they solid, liquid, or vaporous have always had a visible surface. This is because the real Universe consists only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

I was having a good friend and colleague C.J. Varghese about 40 years back in Bhilai steel plant. We are in still in contact….. Your idea “Only an entity that provides substance to all real entities can be the most fundamental. All others are derived from it. In material world, existence of matter is absolute truth……………” is really nice and leads to the...

I was having a good friend and colleague C.J. Varghese about 40 years back in Bhilai steel plant. We are in still in contact….. Your idea “Only an entity that provides substance to all real entities can be the most fundamental. All others are derived from it. In material world, existence of matter is absolute truth……………” is really nice and leads to the search for the fundamentals…. Best wishes to your essay….…. I highly appreciate your essay and hope for reciprocity.

I request you please spend some of the valuable time on Dynamic Universe Model also and give your some of the valuable & esteemed guidance

Some of the Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model :

-No Isotropy

-No Homogeneity

-No Space-time continuum

-Non-uniform density of matter, universe is lumpy

-No singularities

-No collisions between bodies

-No blackholes

-No warm holes

-No Bigbang

-No repulsion between distant Galaxies

-Non-empty Universe

-No imaginary or negative time axis

-No imaginary X, Y, Z axes

-No differential and Integral Equations mathematically

-No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to GR on any condition

-No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models

-No many mini Bigbangs

-No Missing Mass / Dark matter

-No Dark energy

-No Bigbang generated CMB detected

-No Multi-verses

Here:

-Accelerating Expanding universe with 33% Blue shifted Galaxies

-Newton’s Gravitation law works everywhere in the same way

-All bodies dynamically moving

-All bodies move in dynamic Equilibrium

-Closed universe model no light or bodies will go away from universe

-Single Universe no baby universes

-Time is linear as observed on earth, moving forward only

-Independent x,y,z coordinate axes and Time axis no interdependencies between axes..

-UGF (Universal Gravitational Force) calculated on every point-mass

-Tensors (Linear) used for giving UNIQUE solutions for each time step

-Uses everyday physics as achievable by engineering

-21000 linear equations are used in an Excel sheet

-Computerized calculations uses 16 decimal digit accuracy

-Data mining and data warehousing techniques are used for data extraction from large amounts of data.

- Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true….Have a look at

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_15.html

I request you to please have a look at my essay also, and give some of your esteemed criticism for your information……..

Dynamic Universe Model says that the energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation passing grazingly near any gravitating mass changes its in frequency and finally will convert into neutrinos (mass). We all know that there is no experiment or quest in this direction. Energy conversion happens from mass to energy with the famous E=mC2, the other side of this conversion was not thought off. This is a new fundamental prediction by Dynamic Universe Model, a foundational quest in the area of Astrophysics and Cosmology.

In accordance with Dynamic Universe Model frequency shift happens on both the sides of spectrum when any electromagnetic radiation passes grazingly near gravitating mass. With this new verification, we will open a new frontier that will unlock a way for formation of the basis for continual Nucleosynthesis (continuous formation of elements) in our Universe. Amount of frequency shift will depend on relative velocity difference. All the papers of author can be downloaded from “http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/ ”

I request you to please post your reply in my essay also, so that I can get an intimation that you replied

Space is an imaginary container of infinite extent, envisaged by rational beings, whenever they think of real entities. That is; however far one goes, he can find 3D matter-bodies there and beyond. It has neither substance nor structure. Space can become real only when it is filled by an all-encompassing medium. This medium is structured by quanta of matter and fills entire space outside most basic 3D matter-particles. In this case, space and the medium become synonymous. Space is not real but the medium (structured by matter) is real. As the medium has objective reality and positive existence, it has a structure and form. Medium (space) emerges from matter and can deform, act or be acted upon.

Time is another functional entity devised by rational beings to relate cause and effect. Cause precedes effect or effect follows cause. Time measures interval between cause and effect or interval between two states of a body with reference to a standard (assumed) interval. It cannot exist without being related to certain motion or similar actions. By measuring time, we are in fact relating this motion with respect to a standard motion. As time is a functional entity, it can neither expand nor dilate.

Therefore, I consider space and time as two functional derivatives from existence of matter.

Thank you for producing an interesting and thought-provoking essay. Your descriptions of "functional entities" and "real entities" provide a good basis for considering what is most fundamental.

I particularly like your section discussing "real entities" on pages 2 and 3.

At the end of page 3 you mention "...these gaps are considered empty." "Empty" may have more than one meaning. It could mean space that does not contain matter. Alternatively, it could mean a total void or "nothing". In that same paragraph you make an excellent comment about matter being observed or measured in our three dimensional space.

In the second paragraph on page 4 you discuss the perception of objects beyond our ability to observe as being considered nonexistent. That is an important point because it means that the lowest level may require a bottom-up metaphysical approach in order to be understood.

You describe "something" as generic, unstructured "stuff" at its most fundamental level. I agree wholeheartedly. At the end of your real entities section you state that "...relative arrangements..." of this should account for differences in properties of various types of real entities. Here, I disagree. It is the dynamics of the "stuff" that makes our universe what it is.

In my hastily put-together essay, I carefully avoided mention of my own findings. It seemed too self-serving and too complicated to cover adequately. My findings are that one needs to focus on "nothing". Philosophically, the meaning of this is not clear. I have found that the relationship between the "something" entities is not established until they happen to contact one another. When this happens, the usual lack of a coordinate system in "nothing" changes for the interaction of those two entities.

Physics at the most fundamental level obeys a different set of laws than does the observable physics that has been so incredibly explored. Trying to apply normal physics laws at this level guarantees that one will not succeed.

From this simple beginning, one can build the fabric of space and all that follows, including an understanding of the most fundamental aspects of gravity. Unfortunately, people run when they hear this. Maybe they are so convinced that it is impossible to understand that they don't even listen. That is where "fundamental" is to be found.

......... At the end of page 3 you mention "...these gaps are considered empty." "Empty" may have more than one meaning. It could mean space that does not contain matter. Alternatively, it could mean a total void or "nothing".........

This remark, “However, large and small gaps can be observed between even the smallest...

......... At the end of page 3 you mention "...these gaps are considered empty." "Empty" may have more than one meaning. It could mean space that does not contain matter. Alternatively, it could mean a total void or "nothing".........

This remark, “However, large and small gaps can be observed between even the smallest three-dimensional matter-particles. Currently, these gaps are considered empty”, is with respect to spaces between 3D matter-bodies and how they are viewed in contemporary physics. Both meanings, you suggested, are accepted in case of our current views on 3D objects.

........ In the second paragraph on page 4 you discuss the perception of objects beyond our ability to observe as being considered nonexistent. That is an important point because it means that the lowest level may require a bottom-up metaphysical approach in order to be understood.......

We can approach this point purely on physical basis without resorting to metaphysics; with normal (mechanical) actions, interactions, etc., as we do in normal physics about 3D matter-bodies. Only problem is that as we are 3D beings, we may not directly observe or experiment with them, as yet. Currently, we can only infer actors, actions and results.

........You describe "something" as generic, unstructured "stuff" at its most fundamental level. I agree wholeheartedly. At the end of your real entities section you state that "...relative arrangements..." of this should account for differences in properties of various types of real entities. Here, I disagree. It is the dynamics of the "stuff" that makes our universe what it is..........

Dynamics is part of relative arrangements of quanta of matter in structured material objects. Very existence of independent quanta of matter depends on their inherent dynamic properties; inherited from the single property of matter to exist.

......... My findings are that one needs to focus on "nothing". Philosophically, the meaning of this is not clear. I have found that the relationship between the "something" entities is not established until they happen to contact one another. When this happens, the usual lack of a coordinate system in "nothing" changes for the interaction of those two entities..........

Entire universe is a single block of matter (existing simultaneously in different spatial states) of infinite extent. Therefore, no question of ‘nothingness’ occur. A structured universal medium (within the above mentioned block of matter) provides direct link between every most basic 3D matter-particles in universe. Universal medium provides an absolute reference and every point in it are real and materialistic.

.........Physics at the most fundamental level obeys a different set of laws than does the observable physics that has been so incredibly explored. Trying to apply normal physics laws at this level guarantees that one will not succeed.........

In a logical physical concept, all laws and equations should be valid equally and applicable identically at all levels (fundamental level, everyday physical level or cosmic level). If we start at the most fundamental level and follow logical reasoning (without depending on illogical assumptions), such a theory can be discovered by anyone.

........ From this simple beginning, one can build the fabric of space and all that follows, including an understanding of the most fundamental aspects of gravity. Unfortunately, people run when they hear this. Maybe they are so convinced that it is impossible to understand that they don't even listen. That is where "fundamental" is to be found.......

A universal medium that fills entire space (outside most basic 3D matter-particles) and is structured by quanta of matter would replace fabric of space. Gravity (gravitational attraction) would appear as apparent resultant of gravitational actions (inherent property of universal medium) on two most basic 3D matter-particles. And many more ………

Not only most people will refuse to hear these (tall !!!!!!) claims, but they will ridicule the proposer to the most. If you are not one that may run away but are interested in such a concept, kindly visit my website ‘matterdoc.info’.

That was all music to my ears, nicely written with clarity of concept and explanation, also so close to and consistent with my own.

Interestingly 'substance' is a term Minkowski used apparently differently, “The substance at any world-point may always, with the appropriate determination of space and time, be looked upon as at rest.” but not not really when we ask the forgotten question; "what is 'matter' made of?"! (I glanced at your link p.1 but will read it properly) and as you conclude; Entire universe is filled with matter (without voids), in various spatial forms.

I think you hit the key fundamental matter (lol) and put your case well so the essay deserves to be higher up the list, which I'll facilitate. I hope you my read mine and comment my thoughts on ever smaller spin states, but I mainly show the power oif dealing with the smalles 'condensed' matter scale in deriving a classical reproduction of QS'd predictions, so removing the need for 'action at a distance!' Hope you can follow the ontology. See also Declan Traill's for the confirmation code and plot, and also Gordon Watsons.

By substance or stuff, I mean the real physical matter an object consists of and by which every real entity is formed – its literal meaning. As every object in material world is attributed to matter, I presume that matter provides substance to all real entities, whether they are observable or not. Matter is the tangible substance that goes into the makeup of a physical object. It creates all real entities. Creation cannot have direct knowledge of its creator. Therefore, matter is beyond definition by material objects, like us. However, many of its attributes can be inferred by intelligent analyses and deductions of apparent interactions between different observable material bodies (creations) with respect to their environment. Space and time, themselves, are attributes of matter.

Most of your essay went above my head. But I gather your statements imply that fundamentality is somehow centric about ‘actions’ or ‘movements’. This, in turn, raises all questions mentioned in your essay, answers to which point towards existence of substance. Without substance there will not be any real objects that move or act. Moving objects require their own existence and existence of a moving mechanism. Both of these requirements depend of existence of substance.

I highly appreciate your well-written essay in an effort to understand.

It is so close to me. «Only an entity that provides substance to all real entities can be the most fundamental. All others are derived from it. In material world, existence of matter is absolute truth». «In order to have fundamental laws of physics to hold true under all conditions, they should all be based on a single fundamental entity». «Entire universe is filled with matter (without voids), in various spatial forms».

I hope that my modest achievements can be information for reflection for you.

Thank you very much for your kind words. If you are interested to find out more about my concept, kindly refer to www.matterdoc.info .

Frankly, I did not understand much of your article. Although you mentioned ‘toroidal gravitational waves’ as the single (fundamental) entity, many other undefined entities like: ‘rigid and superfluid medium of the physical vacuum’, energy, etc. are subsequently brought into the essay. There seems to be no relations between phenomena mentioned. The name, ‘toroidal gravitational waves’, itself, indicates an entity that has definite structure, composition and movement. With these qualities, the proposed single entity cannot be qualified as fundamental. There are more fundamental entities, which provide its structure and motion.